Elections are not criminal proceedings.

Even civil suits only require a "preponderance of evidence."

But elections are not court actions.

The results (not the overturning) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing side.

I know elections aren’t court proceedings. But if you believe the results are unfair, then you’re implying some crime took place, namely fraud. You can prove that in court with a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, but Lin Wood and Rudy Giuliani haven’t managed to do either.

> The results (not the overturning) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing side.

According to whom? What will make you think this is fair? To me it seems like the only way Trump supporters and Trump will be convinced of the results is if they say he won.

That a crime occured does not require you to first convict a criminal.

And an election that was not properly conducted does not require that a crime be committed.

Alright, what do you want? Specifically, what will it take for you to believe the results of the presidential, senate, house, and local elections are legitimate?

The rules were there for a good reason. If you follow them, and don't unilaterally change them, this whole mess is avoided.

Same goes for everyone refusing audits and 1:1 observers for counting.

If you can't agree (legislatively) to rule changes (even in a pandemic) you don't change the rules.